Xray

I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.

But you have enough faith to believe in the 'resurrection of the flesh'?

Wrong question. Think about it some more and get back to me.

I have thought about it and think you have evaded answering my question.

I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution.

But you have enough faith to believe in the 'resurrection of the flesh'?

>>>Understanding the meaning of terms is the precondition for evaluating whether or not a linguistic sign is used in the correct context.

And that proves there are an infinite number of meanings one can arbitrarily assign to any term — so long as one makes that assignment explicit to others when communicating with them. The linguistic sign "Limes" = [any term one arbitrarily designates], so long as one makes explicitly clear to others the right side of the equal sign.

"Correct context", as you used that phrase, simply means that one assigns a meaning to a term (i.e., the right side of the equal sign) that the majority of other language users assigns to it. There is no inherently correct or incorrect context for a linguistic sign.

By correct use I did not mean "inherently" correct (indeed there is no such thing), but what is called 'correctness' here is the result of a social convention.

Just as it is e. g. 'correct' to write the first person singular in English with the capital letter "I".

A consistent atheist need not assert the non-existence of God. It is sufficient for him to point out that no sound evidence proves the existence of God. Why should anyone believe a proposition for which there is not a shred, a dight, a crumb of evidence?

Ba'al Chatzaf

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I understand this objection.

You then wrote, "not a shred, a dight, a crumb of evidence”.

I would then ask, how did this stuff all get here?

Why would it need a god to get it here?

Because matter doesn’t appear out of nothing without cause.

If you argue on the basis of a causality chain, then god must have a 'cause' too.

A consistent atheist need not assert the non-existence of God. It is sufficient for him to point out that no sound evidence proves the existence of God. Why should anyone believe a proposition for which there is not a shred, a dight, a crumb of evidence?

Ba'al Chatzaf

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I understand this objection.

You then wrote, "not a shred, a dight, a crumb of evidence”.

I would then ask, how did this stuff all get here?

Why would it need a god to get it here?

Quote from the article "Jesus and Ayn Rand - can conservatives claim both" ? http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/29/jesus-or-ayn-rand-can-conservatives-claim-both/comment-page-1/

"How can you invoke Jesus and follow Rand?"

ITA. It's s really about premises. For how can one at the same time be of the opinion that "no supernatural dimension exists" (Rand's stance), but then regard Jesus as God's son and believe in the resurrection of the flesh??

From the same article:

Defenders of Rand say that a person can adopt elements of Rand’s philosophy and reject whatever clashes with their faith.

Which would be patchworking; in fact that's what people do very often. They cherrypick what suits them and disregard what doesn't fit into their philosophical 'quilt'.

But imo orthodox Objectivists would reject this because it goes against what Rand said about Objectvism being an "all or nothing" philosophy:

N. Branden: Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, "It's all or nothing."

http://mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAndHazards.html

NB pointed out that this encourages dogmatism.

>>>I think it is very limited because people will think of someone who does this as just plain crazy.

How is this relevant to whether or not people understand the meaning of terms?

Understanding the meaning of terms is the precondition for evaluating whether or not a linguistic sign is used in the correct context.

Is suppose hardly anyone posts on Darren's site anymore and the 'lack of audience' is frustrating him.

But I still can’t see how you can state that compatibility is independent of fact.

My point was that Rand's statement "No supernatural dimension exists" can neither be verified nor falsified. It is therefore impossble to determine whether Rand was correct or not.

A statement like "no supernatural dimension exists" is incompatible with a belief in a supernatural power God and his son.

Again, there is no way to verifiy or falsify whether or not a God exists.

Here is an interesting article on the subject: Jesus or Ayn Rand - can conservatives claim both?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/29/jesus-or-ayn-rand-can-conservatives-claim-both/comment-page-1/

D asserts: "I did not steal the bike!"

Witness asserts a denial of that: "You did steal the bike!"

Those two assertions are formally contradictory.

Yes. Both could be false.

But doesn't, in formal contradiction, one assertion have to be true?

You've just finished telling anyone reading your post that the term "lime" means "umbrella." We've all read it. Now when you say "It's going to rain, I'll need a lime," there is no breakdown in communication. We all understand what you're saying. Therefore, so long as you tell people how you intend to use terms in your communications with them, the arbitrariness is infinite, not "quite limited."

I think it is very limited because people will think of someone who does this as just plain crazy.

I don't understand your use of the worthless DNA argument. You've just stated that there was an eye-witness to the crime. That's more powerful evidence than the DNA, which simply shows that he was in physical contact with the bike at some point in the past.

The DNA argument is not "worthless" because it supports the eyewitness's testimony.

.

Bringing Babies to the Classroom to Teach Empathy

Watch the video of the report on this one. Watch the children.

Great link! Thanks for sharing, Stephen.

[quoting MSK] >>>What is the mechanism to you about how propositions can relate to reality?

It's irrelevant to logic, which studies the relation of propositions to one another. You're confusing logic with epistemology.

"We Erred Rand": Do you think of logic as irrelevant to epistemology?

Good God, no. But I do think of epistemology as irrelevant to logic. And the discussion thus far has been about logic, not epistemology.

Actually the opposite had been the case before you jumped in with formal logic in an issue where it was is not needed. As I wrote in my prior post, terms like "contradiction" and "incompatibility" are not exclusively reserved for formal logic; they are also used in countless other contexts without causing any misunderstanding in communication.

In criminal cases for example, evidentiary findings can contradict a suspect's version of events.

Defense laywers would have field day day in court if the prosecution could only build a case against their clients if they formally conradicted themselves.

Example for demonstration purposes:

Let's say defendant D has stolen a motorbike; an eyewitness has even seen him with the vehicle.

D says he had been at a different location at the time. But then additional evidence is discovered: his DNA is found on the mororbike. This evidence contradicts D's version even further.

Do you really believe that the defense counsel is going to be successful in court if he tells the prosecution: "But you don't have a case agaist my client because he never formally contradicted himsellf!"

We're merely talking about the word "limes", not real material limes.

The word "limes" refers to what exactly then?

You can assign any meaning you want to it.

Of course I can personally assign 'any meaning' to any term, but in using language you would get a complete communication breakdown if (random example) you'd decide to assign the meaning 'umbrella' to the term 'lime'.

"It's going to rain. I'll need a lime."

The arbitriness in assigning is therefore quite limited.

The logical relation among the premises and the conclusion won't change. Did you think it would?

The debate has not been about formal logic. Instead it was about the incompatibility of a faith in a supernatural power with Rand's stance on this issue. That's what it was about.

Terms like "contradiction" and "incompatibility" are not exclusively used in formal logic, but in countless other situations as well.

[quoting MSK] >>>What is the mechanism to you about how propositions can relate to reality?

It's irrelevant to logic, which studies the relation of propositions to one another. You're confusing logic with epistemology.

"We Erred Rand": Do you think of logic as irrelevant to epistemology?

We're merely talking about the word "limes", not real material limes.

The word "limes" refers to what exactly then?

“Could we agree”? Yes. Can a “fact” be false? I’d be more likely to go along with a practical certainty as a definition of truth, that which we feel comfortable to act upon.

I would put it this way: What is regarded as fact can turn out to be false. But in that case, the alleged fact was never a fact.

Example: suppose in a criminal case, the police regarded it as fact for quite some time that a certain 'person of interest' had an airtight alibi.

But later it turned out that a good friend had given this person a false alibi. The alleged 'fact' had never been a fact.

Daydreams are extremely useful and valid for living.

Decoding anagrams can be quite useful too. Just sayin'.

'Xyra'

Compatibility in this case is independent of factual truth.

How so? I would think one would need to know if something were true before attempting to compare it to another thing (which should also be true) before evaluating their compatibility. For example, if I were going to compare apples and oranges and mistakenly used a lemon instead of an orange, would the resulting compatibility determination be correct?

Maybe there’s some O’ist philosophical gymnastics that can be proposed to support your point, but being relatively new here, I can’t think of any.

I'm not an Objectivist, nor am I arguing from an Objectivist point of view here.

As for the 'truth' issue, I doubt this will get us very far in this debate because before long we will reach the realm of pure belief, with no empirical facts to back it up.

But I have the feeling that this issue is still very important to you, so I'll give it a try; I suggest a step by step approach

"A statement is true if it corresponds to fact". Could we agree on this as a common ground for the discussion?

I'll await your reply before continuing.

>>>If for example Jim says that the capital of Romania is Budapest, but John says it is Sofia, their statetments are incompatible because they contradict each other.

Wrong.

>>>The next step is whether it can be determined whose statement is correct. In the above example, both have got it wrong.

That they both have it wrong proves they are not contradictory. When two assertions contradict each other, one of them, by definition, must be true.

Actual contradictory statements would be the following:

Jim: "The capital of Romania is Budapest."

John: "The capital of Romania is not Budapest."

They cannot both be right, and they cannot both be wrong. They are "mutually exclusive AND jointly exhaustive." One of these two assertions must be right.

Would you explain why the statements:

Jim: "The capital of Romania is Budapest."

John: "The capital of Romania is Sofia."

are not mutually exclusive?

In criminal cases, one uses the term "contradictory statements" as well, but this does not necessarily mean that one of them must be true. They can all be false, for example when guilty suspects change elements of their 'story' several times.

I disagree. One cannot simply proclaim “x” and expect everyone to believe it just because someone says it.

ITA.

in this case one would have to determine whether Rand’s proclamation is actually true before using it make a determination of whether O’ism and X-nity are compatible.

Compatibility in this case is independent of factual truth.

If for example Jim says that the capital of Romania is Budapest, but John says it is Sofia, their statetments are incompatible because they contradict each other.

The next step is whether it can be determined whose statement is correct. In the above example, both have got it wrong.

In the many discussion I’ve had with Objectivists elsewhere I’ve made it clear that I understand their atheism on the basis of the “supernatural” realm ascribed to it , however I do not accept their objections based on their attitudes toward altruism and mysticism which are not universal practices. Heck, even I don’t accept those as integral to Christianity and view professing Christians who espouse those behaviors as self righteous ascetics.

Still, both mysticism and altruism do have a long tradition in Christianity.

You’re correct, but the mysticism and altruism are not universal tenets of Christianity. You commit a composition fallacy to use that line of argumentation.

I merely pointed out a fact: mysticism and altruism do have a long tradition in Christianity.

Whether a Christian individual views them as integral to the type of Christinaity he/she practises is a matter of personal preference.

People can be members of a church for many different reasons.

So the question I would ask you is: what universal practices do you accept as integral to your preferred variant of Christianity?

In the many discussion I’ve had with Objectivists elsewhere I’ve made it clear that I understand their atheism on the basis of the “supernatural” realm ascribed to it , however I do not accept their objections based on their attitudes toward altruism and mysticism which are not universal practices. Heck, even I don’t accept those as integral to Christianity and view professing Christians who espouse those behaviors as self righteous ascetics.

Still, both mysticism and altruism do have a long tradition in Christianity.

It doesn’t matter whether Rand was “clear as a bell” when she made her proclamation “ex cathedra". What matters is, “was she correct?” How can one say with certainty that something which cannot be proven one way or the other is in fact, true?

My focus here was on whether Objectivism and Christianity are compatible (not whether their premises are (in)correct).

They are incompatible because the statement 'No supernatural dimension exists' leaves no room for the idea of a supernatural being and his son.

Discussing whether Rand was correct is another issue. Since there is no proof either way, epistemologically speaking, agnosticism is the only position which avoids the fallacy of claiming knowledge of something which cannot be known.

As for ethics - since there is no scintilla of evidence indicating that a god exists, deriving a code of ethics from a 'god's will' would be an epistemological fallacy.